can anyone describe me the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint? . why is this important when selecting the executive?
2007-08-08 02:03:40 · 2 answers · asked by jegatato86 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In theory -- judicial activism is going beyond the scope of the laws to set social policy (what "should" be), while judicial restraint is only interpreting the laws as necessary (what "must" be) without stretching things beyond what the legislators intended .
In reality -- judicial activism is any result the public doesn't like, and judicial restraint is any result the public likes.
2007-08-08 06:33:58 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Activism by the Judiciary writes law that would never be voted on by an elective body. The peoples wishes are ignored and by passed.
The choice of executive who believes in restraint protects the voice of the people.
2007-08-08 02:11:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋